This forum is for all Falcons' fans, and is independent of the both the club and the supporters association. If you have something to say about Newcastle Falcons this is the place to say it. However please keep it clean and non abusive, and respect the other users of this board!

While the editors of this site monitor the board, they are not responsible for the content of the postings. Any concerns, complaints etc... should be emailed to Sportnetwork. If you want to spam, please go elsewhere - any spamming will be deleted.

The BBC coverage of the 6 Nations helps show how much better Sky are at covering rugby.

They always begin with frankly embarrassing pieces of John Inverdale trying to be amusingly informative as he hypes the game to follow - the re-enactment of the Battle of Agincourt on Saturday was particularly childish in the extreme. Inverdale seems a decent enough guy who must find this kind of approach demeaning.

While commentery by their Scottish guy is OK, the same can't be said about Eddie Butler; to think that the BBC believe him to be a worthy successor to the late Bill McLaren is a travesty. Butler keeps mis-identifying players and misses so much of what is going on on the pitch. Captions are sometimes wrong.

There are too many 'experts' on call to add their thoughts. Brian Moore and Jonathon Davies are experts on the game but seem to think that their role is to expose referee 'errors' and to provide coaching hints to their favourite team. Serge Betson was a great player but as a studio guest on Saturday it was often close to impossible to understand what he was saying. Really, they should have selected a different French guest. BBC coverage is just not professional enough.

I'd rather have Miles Harrison and Stuart Barnes and the others any day. But, of course, it is right that the BBC should cover the 6 Nations because of the much wider coverage they provide, but it would be so much better if they would be more professional in their total presentation.

This is the same Sky, who demanded that against all the history & ethos of rugby, the away team should be forced to wear their second strip, not the home team & then only if the home teams main kit clashed with the visitors? Even getting Harlequins who clashed with no one, to adopt a second kit.

I agree that mutch of the camera work by Sky is superior, but the only time I'd take the Fat Controller over Brian Moore is if I were strnded on a desert island & was required to kill & eat another human being.

I doubt that there will ever be a complete replacement for Bill McClaren, but doesn't it tell you something that he chose to stay with the BBC rather than move to Sky?

I agree generally but also don't like Cotter and have to turn the sound off when Nichol starts in his monologue.

The problem I had with McClaren is the opposite of Moore etc. He would never remotely criticise a ref no matter how blatantly wrong the decision was. As far as I'm concerned that's not objective commentating. I also have no interest in which primary school a player went to and the what the name of his chemistry teacher was. I didn't miss him one bit when he retired. Give me Moore or Butler over McClaren as the lesser of 2 evils. At least they've both played the game.
I also find it irritating where there's a dubious incident eg forward pass or offside and all you get are closeups of players not a replay.

I don't think Moore's best friends would call him an 'objective commentator' - opinionated - yes - but objective - never!! Agree that Nichol can be irritating - but not as bad as 'verbal diarrhoea' Greenwood! Overall, tho' I prefer the total Sky rugby package compared with the Beeb! We obviously differ, TL.

I'm glad the question was put.
Three things really irritate me with the Sky and BBC rugby coverage of rugby:
1. Too many pundits justifying their existence (and the technology) by analysing some obscure tactical move when there is a brief pause in play. They gabble through the replay, and when we cut back to the action the play has already re-started. Infuriating.
2. Cut away shots into the crowd who then see themselves on the big screen and start to wave at themselves, which then prompts the director to cut-away again. Especially annoying during the anthems and after a try has been scored. I want to see the players in close-up, please, not exhibitionists in the stands.
3. Man of the match nominations. Sometimes we get the nomination seven to eight minutes before the end of the game. Ridiculous. Why can't they wait until the final whistle has gone?
Thank you. I now feel a lot better.

I agree in every respect: Sky's rugby coverage is vastly superior to the Beeb's. Better commentators, better technology, better analysis.

Did you notice how the Beeb kept using that overhead camera at Twickenham? It adds nothing to the enjoyment and makes me feel queasy. I think some of those reverse angle shots are known technically as "crossing the line".

I watched the Leeds game from the North Stand at Headingley but when I viewed the recording back today I noticed it was all shot from the South Stand which was very disorientating because it's not how I remembered the action. But the Beeb are giving both angles in the same game which is even more confusing.

I think you're a bit unfair on McClaren as a player because he was probably closer to an international cap than you'll have been!
As for your thoughts on Brian Moore if you think he's objective it says more about your judgement than his 'objectivity'.

TL - Ok I take back what you actually said about objectivity. You said McLaren was not objective and I assumed, obviously wrongly, that you implied that, in contrast, Moore was objective. I stand corrected!

sourDespite the ladsy in fighting and suspect banter I prefer ESPN to both...

I was just about to say the same thing, I think their coverage makes a massively refreshing change after years of the Sky monopoly. Getting Nick Mullins in was a masterstroke and, dare I say it, I actually enjoy listening to the Durden-Smith/Healey/Kay trio...

The BBC aren't as bad as people are making out on here either IMO - give me Inverdale, Moore, Davies, Wood or Cotter over Barnes/Morris any day of the week.

TBH there is nobody to equal Mclaren - sorry to disagree with you Touchy! The man porduced phrases of description that are now generic rugby vocabulary.

As I am stuck abroad a lot of the time, I have Sky Sports and ESPN only for the rugby. As you pay extra for both I can comfortably say I feel I get better value for money from ESPN with 2 games a week as opposed to Sky's 1 and the LV.

Yes Sky have the HEC, but as my team haven't featured in it since the last decade, I don't really care about it unless I happen to be in.

Healey I quite like too. Spends his whole time criticising the ref (no change there then) and irritating everyone around him in an enjoyable aside, while actually making some useful comments.

I don't like Davies on the BBC - neither he nor Moore are objective. However, Moore has learnt to eat humble pie if he is incorrect, while despite TV replays to the contrary Davies will not back down. He belongs in a fan's forum not on mainstream commentary.

You're confusing two things: match commentators and studio pundits. They are different animals.

To put Austin Healey ahead of Miles Harrison as a commentator is ridiculous. Live commentary is a highly specialised skill: an ability to capture in words the unfolding drama on the field. Very few people can do it.

Harrison for my money is miles ahead of Butler who's both bumbling and biased. Butler can tell you that someone's great grandfather also played for Wales but can't even identify the England No 6.

As for McLaren, lovely man but he belonged firmly to the amateur era (indeed he was opposed to the game going professional). He also became very cliched with such phrases as "and they'll be dancing in the streets of Hawick tonight".

The bits I dislike with the BBC is the 'touchline reporters especially the lady that covers england games, I believe Sonja McLaughlin (!) as she is always trying to prompt players for a soundbite as opposed to constructive comment. It amuses me to watch her interview Martin Johnson as he just glares at her questions in disbelief.
In my opinion Sky is marginally better than the Beeb, cannot comment on ESPN as have never seen a match on it, although they bought the best summariser in Healey who was excellent on the Beeb.

Espn's best move is having a forward and a back as colour commentators - what does Bryan Moore know about box kicking or how to play as a unit in the back 3, or what does barnes know about lineout jumping and scrummaging

Precious little - but the balance brought by Kay and Healey works v well - i especially their on field breakdown of one teams tactic before the game

Mclaren was from another era, but that is like saying that Martin Johnson isn't the best lock England have had because his era has passed and the game is faster now.

I accept that Guscott is a pundit and not a commentator. I was aware of this but he is still aweful. He still has to provide analysis and that fact that he is so poor without being on the hoof perhaps makes him the worst of the lot.

Greenwood spends most of his time in the studio too, but his analysis is vastly better.

Sadly I would debate that Barnes knows that much about the 10 spot for all he played there. He espouses some bizarre theories about it - many anachronistic.

Sonia is the worst of all. If she was a bloke she would have been sacked years ago. She really is a classic example of the case against positive discrimination. Shame when one must have thought that there would be any number of ex women's rugby players at international level who could make a very good stab at the role.

Oh god, how could I forget about Sonia?! Easily the most irritating person I've ever come across watching rugby - horrible questions and a horrible style. Contrast her to the underused Hazel Irvine and the Welsh girl on ESPN, whose name escapes me, and you wonder how she's even employed?

Like nursepete mentioned, judging from the looks Martin Johnson's given her down the years I don't think he's a fan either...

The fat controller is just annoying, Myles says a lot of purile pointless pap in between decent commentary, but Eddie Butler take the prize for worst commentator ever. He is clueless, misses the point of tactics, mis-interprets the detail of what has gone on, mis-identifies players - the full card of crapiness. He is also the most one eyed anti-English bigot on the face of tv sport! He even makes Barnesy's hatred of anything touched by Andrew look like mild disinterest. I am just happy that I can watch rugby at my local rugby club so that I can barely hear the commentary due to the background noise.

The thing that really gets to me when listening to eddie butler is his ridiculous over pronounciation of names, and the fact that someone still hasn't told Jonathan Davies how to say Harinordoquy, not Harridonikey! Tool.

I'm with you on that one Leipy. Green only commentates occasionally these days in between giving us the benefit of his various opinions about more or less everything usually followed by his personal exasperation about one or all of the officials.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net